[ad_1]
OSHA Training Institute
*
Hazard and
Vulnerability Assessment
OSHA Training Institute
University of California, San Diego (UCSD) – Extension
OSHA Training Institute
*
OSHA Training Institute
*
| HAZARD AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL | ||||||||
| EVENTS INVOLVING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS | ||||||||
| SEVERITY = (MAGNITUDE – MITIGATION) | ||||||||
| EVENT | PROBABILITY | HUMAN IMPACT | PROPERTY IMPACT | BUSINESS IMPACT | PREPARED-NESS | INTERNAL RESPONSE | EXTERNAL RESPONSE | RISK |
| Likelihood this will occur | Possibility of death or injury | Physical losses and damages | Interuption of services | Preplanning | Time, effectivness, resouces | Community/ Mutual Aid staff and supplies | Relative threat* | |
| SCORE | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 – 100% |
| Mass Casualty Hazmat Incident (>= 5 victims) | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 33% |
| Small Casualty Hazmat Incident (with < 5 victims) | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 50% |
| Chemical Exposure, External | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 44% |
| Small-Medium Sized Internal Spill | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 20% |
| Large Internal Spill | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 41% |
| Terrorism, Chemical | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 22% |
| Radiologic Exposure, Internal | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 41% |
| Radiologic Exposure, External | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 20% |
| Terrorism, Radiologic | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 56% |
| AVERAGE | 1.78 | 2.44 | 1.44 | 2.11 | 1.22 | 2.22 | 1.78 | 37% |
| *Threat increases with percentage. | ||||||||
| 16 | RISK = PROBABILITY * SEVERITY | |||||||
| 101 | 0.37 | 0.59 | 0.62 |
OSHA Training Institute
*
Chart1
| 0.310546875 |
| 0.3487226839 |
| 0.3518518519 |
| 0.3694558756 |
Hazard Specific Relative Risk
Instructions
| Hospital Preparedness Program | Hospital Preparedness Program | |||||||||
| INSTRUCTIONS: | Issues to consider for preparedness include, but are not limited to: | |||||||||
| 1 | Status of current plans | |||||||||
| Evaluate potential for event and response among the following categories using | 2 | Frequency of drills | ||||||||
| the hazard specific scale. Assume each event incident occurs at the worst | 3 | Training status | ||||||||
| possible time (e.g. during peak patient loads). | 4 | Insurance | ||||||||
| 5 | Availability of alternate sources for critical supplies/services | |||||||||
| Please note specific score criteria on each work sheet to ensure accurate recording. | ||||||||||
| Issues to consider for probability include, but are not limited to: | Issues to consider for internal resources include, but are not limited to: | |||||||||
| 1 | Known risk | 1 | Types of supplies on hand/will they meet need? | |||||||
| 2 | Historical data | 2 | Volume of supplies on hand/will they meet need? | |||||||
| 3 | Manufacturer/vendor statistics | 3 | Staff availability | |||||||
| 4 | Coordination with MOB’s | |||||||||
| Issues to consider for response include, but are not limited to: | 5 | Availability of back-up systems | ||||||||
| 1 | Time to marshal an on-scene response | 6 | Internal resources ability to withstand disasters/survivability | |||||||
| 2 | Scope of response capability | |||||||||
| 3 | Historical evaluation of response success | Issues to consider for external resources include, but are not limited to: | ||||||||
| 1 | Types of agreements with community agencies/drills? | |||||||||
| Issues to consider for human impact include, but are not limited to: | 2 | Coordination with local and state agencies | ||||||||
| 1 | Potential for staff death or injury | 3 | Coordination with proximal health care facilities | |||||||
| 2 | Potential for patient death or injury | 4 | Coordination with treatment specific facilities | |||||||
| 5 | Community resources | |||||||||
| Issues to consider for property impact include, but are not limited to: | ||||||||||
| 1 | Cost to replace | Complete all worksheets including Natural, Technological, Human and Hazmat. | ||||||||
| 2 | Cost to set up temporary replacement | The summary section will automatically provide our specific and overall relative threat. | ||||||||
| 3 | Cost to repair | |||||||||
| 4 | Time to recover | |||||||||
| Issues to consider for business impact include, but are not limited to: | ||||||||||
| 1 | Business interruption | |||||||||
| 2 | Employees unable to report to work | |||||||||
| 3 | Customers unable to reach facility | |||||||||
| 4 | Company in violation of contractual agreements | |||||||||
| 5 | Imposition of fines and penalties or legal costs | |||||||||
| 6 | Interruption of critical supplies | |||||||||
| 7 | Interruption of product distribution | |||||||||
| 8 | Reputation and public image | |||||||||
| 9 | Financial impact/burden |
&L&8© 2001 Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.&R&”Arial,Italic”&8&F
Natural Hazards
| HAZARD AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL | ||||||||
| NATURALLY OCCURRING EVENTS | ||||||||
| SEVERITY = (MAGNITUDE – MITIGATION) | ||||||||
| EVENT | PROBABILITY | HUMAN IMPACT | PROPERTY IMPACT | BUSINESS IMPACT | PREPARED-NESS | INTERNAL RESPONSE | EXTERNAL RESPONSE | RISK |
| Likelihood this will occur | Possibility of death or injury | Physical losses and damages | Interuption of services | Preplanning | Time, effectivness, resouces | Community/ Mutual Aid staff and supplies | Relative threat* | |
| SCORE | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 – 100% |
| Hurricane | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11% |
| Tornado | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 17% |
| Severe Thunderstorm | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 41% |
| Snow Fall | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 15% |
| Blizzard | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 17% |
| Ice Storm | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 30% |
| Earthquake | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 41% |
| Tidal Wave | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 19% |
| Temperature Extremes | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 56% |
| Drought | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 67% |
| Flood, External | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 61% |
| Wild Fire | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 48% |
| Landslide | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 48% |
| Volcano | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 24% |
| Epidemic | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 56% |
| AVERAGE SCORE | 1.69 | 2.13 | 1.69 | 1.56 | 1.50 | 1.44 | 1.63 | 31% |
| *Threat increases with percentage. | ||||||||
| 27 | RISK = PROBABILITY * SEVERITY | |||||||
| 159 | 0.31 | 0.56 | 0.55 |
&C &RPage 1]
Technological Hazards
| HAZARD AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL | ||||||||
| TECHNOLOGIC EVENTS | ||||||||
| SEVERITY = (MAGNITUDE – MITIGATION) | ||||||||
| EVENT | PROBABILITY | HUMAN IMPACT | PROPERTY IMPACT | BUSINESS IMPACT | PREPARED-NESS | INTERNAL RESPONSE | EXTERNAL RESPONSE | RISK |
| Likelihood this will occur | Possibility of death or injury | Physical losses and damages | Interuption of services | Preplanning | Time, effectivness, resouces | Community/ Mutual Aid staff and supplies | Relative threat* | |
| SCORE | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 – 100% |
| Electrical Failure | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 67% |
| Generator Failure | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 56% |
| Transportation Failure | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 24% |
| Fuel Shortage | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 48% |
| Natural Gas Failure | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 26% |
| Water Failure | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 41% |
| Sewer Failure | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 30% |
| Steam Failure | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 15% |
| Fire Alarm Failure | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 56% |
| Communications Failure | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 37% |
| Medical Gas Failure | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 17% |
| Medical Vacuum Failure | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 41% |
| HVAC Failure | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 41% |
| Information Systems Failure | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 19% |
| Fire, Internal | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 17% |
| Flood, Internal | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 19% |
| Hazmat Exposure, Internal | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 48% |
| Supply Shortage | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 44% |
| Structural Damage | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 20% |
| AVERAGE SCORE | 1.74 | 1.89 | 1.95 | 1.89 | 1.89 | 1.74 | 1.47 | 35% |
| *Threat increases with percentage. | ||||||||
| 33 | RISK = PROBABILITY * SEVERITY | |||||||
| 206 | 0.35 | 0.58 | 0.60 |
&C &RPage 2
Human Hazards
| HAZARD AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL | ||||||||
| HUMAN RELATED EVENTS | ||||||||
| SEVERITY = (MAGNITUDE – MITIGATION) | ||||||||
| EVENT | PROBABILITY | HUMAN IMPACT | PROPERTY IMPACT | BUSINESS IMPACT | PREPARED-NESS | INTERNAL RESPONSE | EXTERNAL RESPONSE | RISK |
| Likelihood this will occur | Possibility of death or injury | Physical losses and damages | Interuption of services | Preplanning | Time, effectivness, resouces | Community/ Mutual Aid staff and supplies | Relative threat* | |
| SCORE | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 – 100% |
| Mass Casualty Incident (trauma) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 41% |
| Mass Casualty Incident (medical/infectious) | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 19% |
| Terrorism, Biological | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 37% |
| VIP Situation | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 56% |
| Infant Abduction | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 37% |
| Hostage Situation | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 19% |
| Civil Disturbance | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 13% |
| Labor Action | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 19% |
| Forensic Admission | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 33% |
| Bomb Threat | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 44% |
| AVERAGE | 1.80 | 1.70 | 1.60 | 1.60 | 1.30 | 1.50 | 1.80 | 35% |
| *Threat increases with percentage. | ||||||||
| 18 | RISK = PROBABILITY * SEVERITY | |||||||
| 95 | 0.35 | 0.60 | 0.59 |
&C &RPage 3
Hazardous Materials
| HAZARD AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL | ||||||||
| EVENTS INVOLVING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS | ||||||||
| SEVERITY = (MAGNITUDE – MITIGATION) | ||||||||
| EVENT | PROBABILITY | HUMAN IMPACT | PROPERTY IMPACT | BUSINESS IMPACT | PREPARED-NESS | INTERNAL RESPONSE | EXTERNAL RESPONSE | RISK |
| Likelihood this will occur | Possibility of death or injury | Physical losses and damages | Interuption of services | Preplanning | Time, effectivness, resouces | Community/ Mutual Aid staff and supplies | Relative threat* | |
| SCORE | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 – 100% |
| Mass Casualty Hazmat Incident (>= 5 victims) | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 33% |
| Small Casualty Hazmat Incident (with < 5 victims) | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 50% |
| Chemical Exposure, External | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 44% |
| Small-Medium Sized Internal Spill | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 20% |
| Large Internal Spill | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 41% |
| Terrorism, Chemical | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 22% |
| Radiologic Exposure, Internal | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 41% |
| Radiologic Exposure, External | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 20% |
| Terrorism, Radiologic | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 56% |
| AVERAGE | 1.78 | 2.44 | 1.44 | 2.11 | 1.22 | 2.22 | 1.78 | 37% |
| *Threat increases with percentage. | ||||||||
| 16 | RISK = PROBABILITY * SEVERITY | |||||||
| 101 | 0.37 | 0.59 | 0.62 |
&RPage 4
Summary
| SUMMARY OF HAZARDS ANALYSIS | |||||
| Natural | Technological | Human | Hazmat | Total for Facility | |
| Probability | 0.56 | 0.58 | 0.60 | 0.59 | 0.58 |
| Severity | 0.55 | 0.60 | 0.59 | 0.62 | 0.58 |
| Hazard Specific Relative Risk: | 0.31 | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.37 | 0.33 |
| Copy to OEM | Date | 17/03/2019 |
&RPage 5
Summary
Hazard Specific Relative Risk
Priorities & Measures
&F
Relative Impact on Facility
Probability and Severity of Hazards to East Texas Gulf Coast Region
| Priorities | |||
| Epidemic | Hurricanes/Floods w/associated utility failure | chemical/hazmat | |
| Mitigation | handwashing and cough hygeine at healthcare facilities staff education, work with public health officials to educate public, develop strategies for surge capacity | Generators, fuel contracts, facility hardening, staffing plans, utility redundancy | All facilities have decon equipment and trained personnel. Early notification systems and relationships with local refineries. |
| Preparedness | Education, signage, development of RACS system for surge capacity. Facilities to have redundant supply vendors and initial stockpile of supplies/medications. Develop staff plans for decreased workforce/increase patient demand | Redundant vendors, evacuation/shelter in place plans, regional coordination, identification of resources to include transportation assets. | Regular decon training and exercises. Meetings with local LEPC and refinery officials |
| Response | Work with public health, OEM and CMOC for surge capacity, alternate care sites, and patient load sharing | Work with local OEM, EMS and regional jurisdictions to coordinate response and resources/requests | Preserve facility and staff from contamination, provide rapid and effective decontamination capabilities to prevent death and further injury. |
| Recovery | Return to normal operating procedures | Return to normal operating procedures | Return to normal operating procedures |
| Measures |
&RPage 6
*
OSHA Training Institute
*
OSHA Training Institute
Chart1
| 0.5802469136 |
| 0.5771604938 |
Relative Impact on Facility
Probability and Severity of Hazards to East Texas Gulf Coast Region
Instructions
| Hospital Preparedness Program | Hospital Preparedness Program | |||||||||
| INSTRUCTIONS: | Issues to consider for preparedness include, but are not limited to: | |||||||||
| 1 | Status of current plans | |||||||||
| Evaluate potential for event and response among the following categories using | 2 | Frequency of drills | ||||||||
| the hazard specific scale. Assume each event incident occurs at the worst | 3 | Training status | ||||||||
| possible time (e.g. during peak patient loads). | 4 | Insurance | ||||||||
| 5 | Availability of alternate sources for critical supplies/services | |||||||||
| Please note specific score criteria on each work sheet to ensure accurate recording. | ||||||||||
| Issues to consider for probability include, but are not limited to: | Issues to consider for internal resources include, but are not limited to: | |||||||||
| 1 | Known risk | 1 | Types of supplies on hand/will they meet need? | |||||||
| 2 | Historical data | 2 | Volume of supplies on hand/will they meet need? | |||||||
| 3 | Manufacturer/vendor statistics | 3 | Staff availability | |||||||
| 4 | Coordination with MOB’s | |||||||||
| Issues to consider for response include, but are not limited to: | 5 | Availability of back-up systems | ||||||||
| 1 | Time to marshal an on-scene response | 6 | Internal resources ability to withstand disasters/survivability | |||||||
| 2 | Scope of response capability | |||||||||
| 3 | Historical evaluation of response success | Issues to consider for external resources include, but are not limited to: | ||||||||
| 1 | Types of agreements with community agencies/drills? | |||||||||
| Issues to consider for human impact include, but are not limited to: | 2 | Coordination with local and state agencies | ||||||||
| 1 | Potential for staff death or injury | 3 | Coordination with proximal health care facilities | |||||||
| 2 | Potential for patient death or injury | 4 | Coordination with treatment specific facilities | |||||||
| 5 | Community resources | |||||||||
| Issues to consider for property impact include, but are not limited to: | ||||||||||
| 1 | Cost to replace | Complete all worksheets including Natural, Technological, Human and Hazmat. | ||||||||
| 2 | Cost to set up temporary replacement | The summary section will automatically provide our specific and overall relative threat. | ||||||||
| 3 | Cost to repair | |||||||||
| 4 | Time to recover | |||||||||
| Issues to consider for business impact include, but are not limited to: | ||||||||||
| 1 | Business interruption | |||||||||
| 2 | Employees unable to report to work | |||||||||
| 3 | Customers unable to reach facility | |||||||||
| 4 | Company in violation of contractual agreements | |||||||||
| 5 | Imposition of fines and penalties or legal costs | |||||||||
| 6 | Interruption of critical supplies | |||||||||
| 7 | Interruption of product distribution | |||||||||
| 8 | Reputation and public image | |||||||||
| 9 | Financial impact/burden |
&L&8© 2001 Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.&R&”Arial,Italic”&8&F
Natural Hazards
| HAZARD AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL | ||||||||
| NATURALLY OCCURRING EVENTS | ||||||||
| SEVERITY = (MAGNITUDE – MITIGATION) | ||||||||
| EVENT | PROBABILITY | HUMAN IMPACT | PROPERTY IMPACT | BUSINESS IMPACT | PREPARED-NESS | INTERNAL RESPONSE | EXTERNAL RESPONSE | RISK |
| Likelihood this will occur | Possibility of death or injury | Physical losses and damages | Interuption of services | Preplanning | Time, effectivness, resouces | Community/ Mutual Aid staff and supplies | Relative threat* | |
| SCORE | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 – 100% |
| Hurricane | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11% |
| Tornado | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 17% |
| Severe Thunderstorm | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 41% |
| Snow Fall | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 15% |
| Blizzard | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 17% |
| Ice Storm | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 30% |
| Earthquake | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 41% |
| Tidal Wave | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 19% |
| Temperature Extremes | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 56% |
| Drought | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 67% |
| Flood, External | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 61% |
| Wild Fire | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 48% |
| Landslide | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 48% |
| Volcano | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 24% |
| Epidemic | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 56% |
| AVERAGE SCORE | 1.69 | 2.13 | 1.69 | 1.56 | 1.50 | 1.44 | 1.63 | 31% |
| *Threat increases with percentage. | ||||||||
| 27 | RISK = PROBABILITY * SEVERITY | |||||||
| 159 | 0.31 | 0.56 | 0.55 |
&C &RPage 1]
Technological Hazards
| HAZARD AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL | ||||||||
| TECHNOLOGIC EVENTS | ||||||||
| SEVERITY = (MAGNITUDE – MITIGATION) | ||||||||
| EVENT | PROBABILITY | HUMAN IMPACT | PROPERTY IMPACT | BUSINESS IMPACT | PREPARED-NESS | INTERNAL RESPONSE | EXTERNAL RESPONSE | RISK |
| Likelihood this will occur | Possibility of death or injury | Physical losses and damages | Interuption of services | Preplanning | Time, effectivness, resouces | Community/ Mutual Aid staff and supplies | Relative threat* | |
| SCORE | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 – 100% |
| Electrical Failure | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 67% |
| Generator Failure | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 56% |
| Transportation Failure | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 24% |
| Fuel Shortage | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 48% |
| Natural Gas Failure | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 26% |
| Water Failure | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 41% |
| Sewer Failure | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 30% |
| Steam Failure | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 15% |
| Fire Alarm Failure | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 56% |
| Communications Failure | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 37% |
| Medical Gas Failure | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 17% |
| Medical Vacuum Failure | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 41% |
| HVAC Failure | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 41% |
| Information Systems Failure | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 19% |
| Fire, Internal | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 17% |
| Flood, Internal | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 19% |
| Hazmat Exposure, Internal | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 48% |
| Supply Shortage | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 44% |
| Structural Damage | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 20% |
| AVERAGE SCORE | 1.74 | 1.89 | 1.95 | 1.89 | 1.89 | 1.74 | 1.47 | 35% |
| *Threat increases with percentage. | ||||||||
| 33 | RISK = PROBABILITY * SEVERITY | |||||||
| 206 | 0.35 | 0.58 | 0.60 |
&C &RPage 2
Human Hazards
| HAZARD AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL | ||||||||
| HUMAN RELATED EVENTS | ||||||||
| SEVERITY = (MAGNITUDE – MITIGATION) | ||||||||
| EVENT | PROBABILITY | HUMAN IMPACT | PROPERTY IMPACT | BUSINESS IMPACT | PREPARED-NESS | INTERNAL RESPONSE | EXTERNAL RESPONSE | RISK |
| Likelihood this will occur | Possibility of death or injury | Physical losses and damages | Interuption of services | Preplanning | Time, effectivness, resouces | Community/ Mutual Aid staff and supplies | Relative threat* | |
| SCORE | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 – 100% |
| Mass Casualty Incident (trauma) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 41% |
| Mass Casualty Incident (medical/infectious) | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 19% |
| Terrorism, Biological | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 37% |
| VIP Situation | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 56% |
| Infant Abduction | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 37% |
| Hostage Situation | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 19% |
| Civil Disturbance | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 13% |
| Labor Action | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 19% |
| Forensic Admission | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 33% |
| Bomb Threat | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 44% |
| AVERAGE | 1.80 | 1.70 | 1.60 | 1.60 | 1.30 | 1.50 | 1.80 | 35% |
| *Threat increases with percentage. | ||||||||
| 18 | RISK = PROBABILITY * SEVERITY | |||||||
| 95 | 0.35 | 0.60 | 0.59 |
&C &RPage 3
Hazardous Materials
| HAZARD AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL | ||||||||
| EVENTS INVOLVING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS | ||||||||
| SEVERITY = (MAGNITUDE – MITIGATION) | ||||||||
| EVENT | PROBABILITY | HUMAN IMPACT | PROPERTY IMPACT | BUSINESS IMPACT | PREPARED-NESS | INTERNAL RESPONSE | EXTERNAL RESPONSE | RISK |
| Likelihood this will occur | Possibility of death or injury | Physical losses and damages | Interuption of services | Preplanning | Time, effectivness, resouces | Community/ Mutual Aid staff and supplies | Relative threat* | |
| SCORE | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 = N/A 1 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = Low or none | 0 – 100% |
| Mass Casualty Hazmat Incident (>= 5 victims) | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 33% |
| Small Casualty Hazmat Incident (with < 5 victims) | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 50% |
| Chemical Exposure, External | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 44% |
| Small-Medium Sized Internal Spill | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 20% |
| Large Internal Spill | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 41% |
| Terrorism, Chemical | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 22% |
| Radiologic Exposure, Internal | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 41% |
| Radiologic Exposure, External | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 20% |
| Terrorism, Radiologic | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 56% |
| AVERAGE | 1.78 | 2.44 | 1.44 | 2.11 | 1.22 | 2.22 | 1.78 | 37% |
| *Threat increases with percentage. | ||||||||
| 16 | RISK = PROBABILITY * SEVERITY | |||||||
| 101 | 0.37 | 0.59 | 0.62 |
&RPage 4
Summary
| SUMMARY OF HAZARDS ANALYSIS | |||||
| Natural | Technological | Human | Hazmat | Total for Facility | |
| Probability | 0.56 | 0.58 | 0.60 | 0.59 | 0.58 |
| Severity | 0.55 | 0.60 | 0.59 | 0.62 | 0.58 |
| Hazard Specific Relative Risk: | 0.31 | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.37 | 0.33 |
| Copy to OEM | Date | 17/03/2019 |
&RPage 5
Summary
Hazard Specific Relative Risk
Priorities & Measures
&F
Relative Impact on Facility
Probability and Severity of Hazards to East Texas Gulf Coast Region
| Priorities | |||
| Epidemic | Hurricanes/Floods w/associated utility failure | chemical/hazmat | |
| Mitigation | handwashing and cough hygeine at healthcare facilities staff education, work with public health officials to educate public, develop strategies for surge capacity | Generators, fuel contracts, facility hardening, staffing plans, utility redundancy | All facilities have decon equipment and trained personnel. Early notification systems and relationships with local refineries. |
| Preparedness | Education, signage, development of RACS system for surge capacity. Facilities to have redundant supply vendors and initial stockpile of supplies/medications. Develop staff plans for decreased workforce/increase patient demand | Redundant vendors, evacuation/shelter in place plans, regional coordination, identification of resources to include transportation assets. | Regular decon training and exercises. Meetings with local LEPC and refinery officials |
| Response | Work with public health, OEM and CMOC for surge capacity, alternate care sites, and patient load sharing | Work with local OEM, EMS and regional jurisdictions to coordinate response and resources/requests | Preserve facility and staff from contamination, provide rapid and effective decontamination capabilities to prevent death and further injury. |
| Recovery | Return to normal operating procedures | Return to normal operating procedures | Return to normal operating procedures |
| Measures |
&RPage 6
*
*
*
The post Hazard and Vulnerability Assessment appeared first on Infinite Essays.
[ad_2]
Source link